ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS. versus IL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 803 · Decided: 03-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS.
v.
IL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6411-6418 of 2023)
OCTOBER 03, 2023
[J. K. MAHESHWARI AND K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in 
rejecting the application for extension of time dated 20.01.2021 and in not 
taking the written statements on record.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – 
Order 8 Rule 1 – Being a Commercial Suit, the 30-day period for fi ling 
written statements expired on 08.03.2020 – On 06.06.2020, the further 
condonable period of 90 days also expired – No written statements 
were fi led within the said timelines – Appellants fi led applications on 
20.01.2021 for acceptance of written statements by extending time – 
Applications rejected by the High Court – Propriety:
Held: In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Suo Motu W.P. 
(C) No. 3 of 2020, the Supreme Court by order dated 08.03.2021 directed 
that the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 will stand excluded in 
computing: a) the period prescribed u/ss. 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration 
and Conciliation Act, 1996; b) S.12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; 
c) provisos (b) and (c) of s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; 
and (d) any other laws which prescribe period of limitation for instituting 
proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone 
delay) and termination of proceedings – By virtue of s.16 of the Commercial 
Courts Act, 2015 brought into force on 23.10.2015 some provisions of the 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to the commercial disputes 
were amended – The schedule to the Commercial Courts Act amended Order 
5 Rule 1(1), Order 8 Rule 1 and Order 8 Rule 10 insofar as their applicability 
to commercial disputes was concerned – The outer limit u/Or. 8, r.1 within 
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 803 : 2023 INSC 867
803
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
804
which the court or tribunal can condone the delay is 120 days from the date 
of summons – In the instant case, while summons was served on 07.02.2020, 
the 30 days period expired on 08.03.2020 and the outer limit of 120 days 
expired on 06.06.2020 – The application for taking on record the written 
statements and the extension of time was fi led on 20.01.2021 – Applying 
the orders of 08.03.2021 and the orders made thereafter and excluding the 
time stipulated therein, the applications fi led by the applicants on 20.01.2021 
are well within time – Thus, judgment passed by the High Court set aside 
and the written statements fi led on 20.01.2021 are directed to be taken on 
record. [Paras 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 and 22]
Maxims – Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt – Meaning 
of:
Held: The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over 
their rights is a fundamental legal maxim on which statutes of limitations 
are premised. [Para 9]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Sagufa Ahmed and Others v. Upper Assam Plywood Products Private 
Limited and Others (2021) 2 SCC 317 : [2020] 9 SCR 472; Prakash 
Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited, (2022) 5 SCC 112 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6411-6418 
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2021 of the High Court at 
Calcutta in IA GA Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of 2021.
Appearances:
Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv., Jeevan Ballav Panda, Satish Padhi, Gaurav 
Sharma, Ms. Dhriti Mehta, Rohan Mandal, M/s Khaitan & Co., Rohan 
Batra, Rishabh Bhargava, Harsh Vardhan Arora, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sahil Tagotra, Rishad Medora, Ms. Abhivyakti Banerjee, Ms. Sakshi 
Garg, Advs. for the Respondent.
805
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
K. V. VISWANATHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals challenge the judgment of the High Court 
at Calcutta dated 26.02.2021 passed in General Application Nos. 
3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 of 2021 in Civil Suit No. 177 of 2019. By the 
said judgment, the High Court had dismissed the said applications and 
consequently denied the applicants/defendants prayer to take on record 
their written statements. According to the High Court, the applications 
cannot be allowed as the period of 30 days to fi le the written statements 
had expired on 08.03.2020. The High Court has held that the order 
dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) 
No. 3 of 2020 [In Re: Cognizance for 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.